slavoj zizek: "the ridicule of america attacking afghanistan cannot but strike the eye: if the greatest power in the world will destroy one of the poorest countries in which peasant barely survive on barren hills, will this not be the ultimate case of the impotent acting out?"
just remembered another quote: fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. wonder who might have coined that...
a good friend sent the following quote to me:
"we have 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population [...] our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [...] we should cease to talk about vague and [...] unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. the day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts". – george kennan, main architect of u.s. foreign policy following world war ii, 1948.
the quote can be found in several sources, e.g. in the articles learning from history by greg coleridge and "'crackpot realism' and u.s. imperial hegemonism in europe" by joseph gerson, american friends service committee.
the afsc launched a no more victims campaign.
what does it take to demolish the centers of business and defense of a nation of global power with a monstrous and shockingly successful venture and then to remain so incredibly silent: no cheering, no avowal, no self-praise? (and i am not talking about the supporters, i am talking about the "master-minds".)
although, according to laqueur, one typical characteristic of terrorism is in fact anonymity, there was always at least one lasting confession, a letter, a sign, an announcement of responsibility by at least one specific group (most of the time it were many and it was necessary to find out the real jerks).
this time, the sparse confessions were repudiated almost immediately, nobody wanted to have committed this crime. does this mean the perpetrators got scared of their own vulgarity and its consequences or is this really a new type of terrorism that does not claim any demands but instead has the one and only goal to destroy, nurture chaos and create irrational attention to an invisible and therefor invincible power?
another observation: now that they lost so many sheeps, not many will hear the leaders of christianity in vatican and representatives of christian churches in europe defending islam and the muslim people. strange, very strange.
today again, everything is about the wtc attack and its consequences at perlentaucher's link of the day.
"die kriegserklärungen wurden von der bevölkerung aller beteiligten länder mit einer begeisterung aufgenommen, für die uns heute jedes verständnis fehlt. auch in deutschland strömten die kriegsfreiwilligen nur so zu den meldestellen. man glaubte der krieg werde in wenigen wochen siegreich beendet sein". that was then, that was world war 1.
another good question: are the dancing and celebrating palestinians old footage from 1991? it's not that i do not believe there are enough people who would dance and celebrate but it reminds me on the fragile authenticity of footage. i mean, we're dealing with the tv station that "directed" the gulf war. and many european tv stations carelessly chew what cnn feeds them...
don beck and chris cowan: a spiral view of terrorism.
lloyd demause: "the purpose of this book is to reveal for the first time how the ultimate cause of all wars and human misery is the parental holocaust of children throughout history – an untold story of how literally billions of innocent, helpless children have been routinely killed, bound, battered, mutilated, raped and tortured and then as adults have inflicted upon others the nightmares they themselves experienced".
of special interest is chapter 2 of the book: "not every american president has been able to resist his nation's call for war. studies have shown the main determinant is the kind of childhood the president has experienced".
both links via net-time mailing-list.
the guardian: "shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. but any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process – or why the united states is hated with such bitterness, not only in arab and muslim countries, but across the developing world – seems almost entirely absent".
john pilger: "if the attacks on america have their source in the islamic world, who can really be surprised?" – appropriate thread on metafilter and thanks to elephäntville.
dangerfinder: united states vs. afghanistan.
islam – a religion of terror? the answer is no.
while yesterday everbody knew that the war has just begun, today everybody shows and has understanding. understanding for the lament, understanding for the coming nato strike, understanding for whatever. i don't understand very much of all this. and sorry folks: i don't believe you do.
and i will not be told by anybody how to lament. especially not by journalists or politicians.
iran-iraq war 1980–1988: "perhaps as many as a million people died".